QUESTION ONE : "Whether a Certificate of Appealability should have issued pursuant to Slack v McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 482, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000) on the question of Whether pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(A) When through no fault of the petitioner, he was unable to obtain a direct review and the highest State Court granted relief to place him back to original position on direct review, should the 1-year limitations begin to run after he has completed that direct review resetting the 1-- year limitations period?
"QUESTION TWO : "Whether a Certificate of Appealability should have issued pursuant to Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 482, 120 S.Ct. 1595. 1604 (2000) on the question of Whether the circumstances of petitioner's cause of action present rare and exceptional circumstances warranting equitable tolling of the 1--year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(2)?
"

Question:

When a criminal defendant is unable to obtain timely direct review of his case in state court, should the one-year statute of limitations for appeals begin to run at the date of conviction, as federal law prescribes, or after the delayed direct review is completed?